It's pretty amazing to watch Havlat, especially since I have him in my other pool. I think that was a guy I was aiming for around that time too, only to have you take him. The only negative I see in our pool is if Chicago is as bad as they were last year, the +/- could be a hindrance. I had Bell and Calder last year in a league like this and they were just ok by the end of it due getting pounded every night.

Nice consistency by Jason's team right now Every night, good point totals and few guys with negative totals.

Question Brent, I have Alexander Radulov on my team, but he has an NA next to his name. I took him in the last round knowing he probably wouldn't make the team out of the gate, but would get an early call up. Sure enough, he got the call today and should be in the lineup Saturday. Am I going to be able to set him on my roster, because right now I can't. I don't know if I he is just going to pop back on my roster, or if he's going to show as a free agent.

Weird,I went in and edited your roster, just to see what would happen and it let me put him in on Friday but then it dropped him back to the bench on Saturday

Check again tomorrow and let me know in here. If need be I think I can slot him in on Saturday, but can't do it until tomorrow.

BTW, I didn't move anyone around that was playing any games, so there shouldn't be an impact on your roster/scoring for tomorrow, but check anyway.

I think the glitch will be shortlived, because yahoo just ain't that hot on hockey. It's dumb you can't add G/A for goalies. Of course when your pitcher hits a home run in baseball, you don't get those stats either

I just gotta say that we screwed up the point system in regards to plus/minus. It shouldn't be weighted as heavily as a goal or an assist. It should be no more than a half a point, especially if PIMs are only weighted at .2. Had I been able to post on JD, I would have seen how the scoring was set up and spoke up sooner. I don't even lurk on there anymore so I really didn't see how Brent had set it up. If you can change it at this point, change it now. I'd hate to see a plus/minus cost someone the league.

I think it's a reasonable statement and to be completely honest, I agree with him, but didn't want to bring it up. The reason I didn't bring it up was because looking at my results early on, I was getting hammered by minus points so I thought it might be a bit self serving. Now that someone else has brought it up, I agree.

It's sufficiently early on that changing the stat shouldn't do too much to the standings (I think) so I'd like to open it up for discussion, acknowledging that yeah, once the season starts, etc. But I'm proposing dropping the +/- value to 0.5 points from one, not getting rid of it entirely. So it'll still have value in both directions, but as Jason points out, it is a bit strong in its weighting.

Needs to be majority vote, otherwise it's left until next year. Please provide feedback/opinions/vote.

I'd vote yes. So long as it retroactively updates all of the +/- stuff so far. I'm assuming it does this right?

I'd also like to see a scenario where we have 2 goalie spots - we could leave the games at 92 or whatever they are, but I keep having nights where I pick one of my two goalies, and then the other one plays and gets a win and the one I picked didn't even get in the game.

I think I've got exactly ONE win so far this season - even though my goalies have won a few more games than that (not that they've been great or anything).

I think changing the value does so retroactively, but I'll have to check. I can't see why it wouldn't, so standings may shift a bit when I do (or not).

As for the goalie thing, can't change that this year anyway, so it's subject to discussion for next year. Were we to go back to two goalies, I wouldn't be keen on the larger game cap. If you'll recall last year we had guys with 4-5 goalies to cover off 82 games per, can you imagine if we had even more games to cover? I understand your frustration though, I've had it happen with Nabokov too. Too many platoons this year (sound like RB in football?).

I meant that we'd leave the games cap equal to what it is now, but with two slots - so it'd be two slots with 46 games per slot, just so you wouldn't get shafted if your guy doesn't play and your other guy does.